The Washington critic., 1887-04-20

lul eirort--to identify the authorship
of the series of Letters TO Prominent
People, appearing In the NORTH Amfri.
can RCrl 10 over the signature Of ar.
thur Ric ,mond, with the lady who
usually writes over the pen name Of
Gal Hamilton
1t will he remembered that when the
Letter" 10 Secretary Biyard appeared
II was given ou' though upon what
authority We have u,yuf irvn able tp
understand. that in. writer was VIII.
liam Henry li,r u, tum.h, between
the accustou cl newspaper style Of that
gentleman asd the l.,nnhIut tone Of
the uric.c 10 question, there was no re
cugi TABLE rrsrmhluce.
here were nl,o those who believed,
for some Other unacc3uutablc reasol,
that the author was Mr. ThorndyEc
Rice, the editor of the NorM imcricta,
and this belief may have had more or
less to do with the discourtesy subse-
quently shown him by Minister Phelps
in London. Hut thg hipsaicm is
thoroughly convinced that Arthur
Richmond" Is none other than Gail
Hamilton. The evidence Is conclusive
TO one who knows her style. 1t says
in support of this theory:
There Is the same swing of sentences, the
same brilliant succession of cplgram, the same
fusilade OF questions, tho same method
OF poetical quotation tho same apt
anec tote, the same fine use now Of Opon an
now of unconsclou, biblical allusiors. Even
the Junius form of letters is not new to her,
Tie line of thought Is the same and the out
Iuih NJ Of utuporation Is similar, only that
now writing anonymously she proves what
no one then suspected, that she restrained
her venom. Then her object was to show
that civil.seryice reform Is all nonsense / |
practical politics. and that the attempt to
carry II ont made by President Hayes was
all pretense, and that the first fathers of the
Republic, after Washington, were as big
u oilsmen and as ready to cover up cOcrup.
tlon as their successors of the present duy.
Now the same hatred of civil.scryice reform
directs her abuse of President Cleveland She
attacks him tor not doing what so many
practical politicians" wanted him to do,
namely, to turn out at least half Of the Re.
lublican officers at once
That Is precisely the policy she wrote to the
7Hjrns to defend in 1888. 1t Is the creed Of
Mr.. Blaine.
Doubtless she would not have Mr.. Blaine
held responsible for what "Arthur Richmond
writes, hut one seems TO see Mr.. Blaine pay
ing off old scores, and exposing the weak
nesses Of those whom he does not love. one
asks where Arthur liiuhmond" got hold OF
in tn "a ufprmuf I'm which
lie sure to come to Secretary OF state, like
Mr.. Blaine, but wl ic might not bl known OF
remarked by others. Especially bitter l.
Arthur Richmond toward Mr.. nayard, MIR
Blainc's near successor IN that ullice an
toward MIR, Lowell
The last letter to Mr.. Lowell has confirmed
our judgment. Arthur Rchmoud's" letter
are undoubtedly wrlttcp, with all their bit
ter witty abuse with ali their skllful npu
dent Misrepresentation written possibly fli
uoother purpose than.spitc, and probably by
no less a person than tho sistern-law O
james G. Blaine. Her last con nSlder
able literary venture was in 1873, when she
contributed perhaps thirty long political let
tiers to the 7iijHe. They We're Justly under
stood, We believe, TO represent Mr.. Blaino''
views and spics which he did not care to ex
press under his own name, but which lle wa
very willing, we also believe, to have another
person utter No one can compare these let
tiers of ARTHUR Richmond with those of Gal
Hamilton without believing they are writer
by the same person and inspired from tn
same source.
Dir. BLAND says that If The CRIrI,
had known all the circumstances |
wouldn't have taken up for the settler
on the Grow Creek and WinnebagC
reservation as against the military
eviction with which they are threat
ened. He says In q note elsewher,
printed that these men are not homes
settlers, but land grabbing spectators
and he as much as says that the orde
permitting their entrance on the land
was bought of Secretary Teller ant
paid for like any other piece of mer
chandise. Well, what of II? Arr
these the circumstances that If W,
had known would have induced us t
approve the action now taken? Ad
mitting it TO be true that the settler
are not settlers, but speculators, ant
that they bought their way into tn,
reservation, which we do not believe
word or-but admitting II 10 be true
they went in 10y authority, perfecte,
their claims built houses, induce
others who were homes, settlers 10 lm
in also, and Ibid the fuupdation
of prosperous and thrifty com
munity. on what principle Of jusuas %
decency are they to be eyiclcd and dis
possessed of their little holdings for u
fault of their own? rihcirs had bee
the trespass ii they had r1rcibl
crossed the line Ia violation OF orders
as has been repeatedly attempted wit
the Oklahoma lands the case woul
have been entirely different, Nor doe
II mend the matter any 60 throw tn
lame on the Secretary Of the Interior
Mr. Teller was not artingu5 an lndlyli
ual In the matter, but as the repre-
sentative Of the Government, no
whether the settlers took possession 70
purposes Of speculation or colonization
they had ample warrant for so doing
and If elected, will have just claim fo
summary damages. II may be that tn
King can do no wrong but the Go,
ernment Of the United States Is capabl
Of inhlcting very aggravated wrong
upon It's citizens, and II should be car,
ful not TO do anything of the sort
this instance.
REFERRISG In terms Of just an
fervent eulogy TO the late Chief Justic
H..,... - a.. C,,nxo,,,. To,,rt 80 th